Council committee reviews $743,000 stabilization plan for vacant municipal building after asbestos and mold findings

North College Hill City Council committee members and staff on May 12 reviewed a contractor estimate to stabilize the city’s vacant municipal building after prior environmental testing identified asbestos and mold.

Committee members and the city administrator described the work as an initial, phased stabilization: remediation of hazardous materials, removal of mold, and repairs to stop further water intrusion. The estimate on the table was roughly $743,000; roughly $480,000 of that sum had previously been encumbered to a vendor the administration had identified while the city secured a program of work, the administrator said.

The discussion focused on two questions: what “stabilize the building” legally and practically requires, and whether the council’s prior authorization had covered the broader scope now proposed. Several council members said their understanding of the earlier vote was narrower — to remove asbestos and mold and to allow people and groups to retrieve belongings — and they were not prepared to approve the larger package without additional review. Administration and other council members responded that stabilization, as defined by consulting engineers and the administrator, includes correcting roof and window failures that are allowing water into the structure, because abatement without fixing the water entry points would not stop ongoing deterioration.

“We have to replace the seals around the windows and the roof,” the administrator said, arguing those structural repairs were necessary to prevent a recurrence of mold after remediation. The administrator told the committee the $480,000 already encumbered to a contractor would be lost to the city if the committee withdrew that encumbrance and elected to re-bid the entire job.

Other council members said they wanted clearer written assurances before committing additional funds. One councilmember asked for a formal, signed statement from the environmental or engineering professionals who assessed the site that the proposed phase would return areas to a condition safe for occupancy. The administrator agreed to add explicit language about HVAC cleaning and environmental clearance to any forthcoming contract.

Finance staff said the city’s prior finance actions had placed funds in an encumbrance and that the administration selected a vendor that could perform the multi-discipline work (abatement, roofing, structural seal repairs) without splitting the project into separate prime contracts. Committee members debated whether the vendor selection and scope fit their understanding of council direction.

The committee agreed to a follow-up special meeting to resolve outstanding questions. Members asked colleagues and the public to submit specific questions to the administrator in writing by May 16; staff said they would solicit written clarifications from the contractor and the consulting engineer and provide responses in advance of the special session, which committee members set for May 27 at 6:30 p.m. (tentative).

The committee repeatedly noted two tradeoffs: (1) a fuller stabilization package costs more up front but reduces the risk of recurring damage and higher insurance premiums for a vacant structure; and (2) leaving the building as-is would accelerate deterioration and could force demolition, which could carry its own multi‑hundred‑thousand‑dollar cost and leave the city without a location for public works functions currently served from the site.

Administration said the near-term goal is to stabilize the structure so civic groups and city operations can have safe, usable space and to avoid growing insurance liabilities. Administration also noted that further phases — design, full renovation, or sale — would come back to council for separate decisions and, if needed, formal procurement steps.

Committee members asked for: (a) the contractor’s detailed scope tied to each dollar in the estimate; (b) the environmental consultant’s written clearance criteria stating what must be completed before the city could occupy any portion of the building; and (c) a description of alternatives, including worst-case demolition costs and options for relocating impacted city services. Administration said it would assemble those materials and work with the law director to draft contract language spelling out the environmental clearance and the scope of the encumbered work.

The committee did not finalize a funding decision that night. Members scheduled the special follow-up session and asked administration to circulate contractor clarifications and consultant statements before that meeting so members could consider whether to move a contract and ordinance to the full council.